No, just bc it's NA doesn't mean the engine has to be torque-less. Case in point, the ford 5.0, 420hp, 390tq

That's a bigger motor. You have to have more displacement.

The M3 has VERY good torque per cc and 90% is available at 1800 rpm. A very wide and flat powerband that allows for far greater torque multiplication. Crank torque doesn't mean quite as much as you think it does that is why we have gears.

Originally Posted by bobS

The s65 lacks all those features.

No, the new motor is lacking features like individual throttle bodies, a high redline, and amazing response.

My point is, people cried when BMW went away from the 4 cylinder, they protested when they went away from the inline 6 and now they are crying for going away from the v8.

E30 m3 - 197hp/177lbs tq

E36 m3 - 240hp/225 lbs tq , 236lbs tq on later models

Just bc it's NA, doesn't mean it should be tq-less, the early m3's weren't. I've driven the e92 m3, it's a great car, but in stock form, compared to other sports cars available, it's slow. The earlier m3's were fast well beyond the years they were first introduced.

My point is, people cried when BMW went away from the 4 cylinder, they protested when they went away from the inline 6 and now they are crying for going away from the v8.

E30 m3 - 197hp/177lbs tq

E36 m3 - 240hp/225 lbs tq , 236lbs tq on later models

Just bc it's NA, doesn't mean it should be tq-less, the early m3's weren't. I've driven the e92 m3, it's a great car, but in stock form, compared to other sports cars available, it's slow. The earlier m3's were fast well beyond the years they were first introduced.

This. Im used to a surge of 300ft/lbs by 1500 rpm. If you went and dogged an M3 in 2nd gear, it definitely isnt as fast from down low as a 335 is.

I've driven the e92 m3, it's a great car, but in stock form, compared to other sports cars available, it's slow. The earlier m3's were fast well beyond the years they were first introduced.

Uh, what?

The E36 M3 had 321 horses and definitely was fast and ahead of its time. The E46 M3 just upped the power slightly and was behind the 996 GT3, C5 Z06, Ferrari 355, Gallardo, E55 AMG, 03 Cobra, among others if I had to not just pick off the top of my head. These two M3's also had to be revved out, just like the S65. So not sure what you makes you think the early M3's were torque monsters, they weren't.

The M3 is slow? Really? The DCT is just as fast as the C63 AMG yet that car isn't considered slow but the M3 is? It runs mid 12's stock, what is slow about it? It was just about as quick as the early GT500's with 5.4 liter supercharged motors and provided the same ET but less MPH through the 1/4 than an E60 M5.

I'm talking about the us e36 m3, your quoting the e36 euro m3, and your right, they weren't tq monsters but way more balanced. How can adding more tq to the next gen m3 make it worse? You act like everything after the s65 will suck, if anything it make the next gen m3 that much better and return it to a car that will dominate much more expensive sports cars.

How can adding more tq to the next gen m3 make it worse? You act like everything after the s65 will suck, if anything it make the next gen m3 that much better and return it to a car that will dominate much more expensive sports cars.

No you are acting like a car has to have turbos to have torque. I didn't say which was better or worse.

The M3 never dominated much more expensive sports cars so sorry you are mistaken and the E92 fairs quite well as already illustrated.

No, I have been saying a NA engine can have plenty of tq, I even gave examples, including the US e36 m3, but the s65 doesn't have a lot of tq, thankfully BMW is changing that.

You are not making any sense. Please explain to me how the S50 has plenty of torque but the S65 doesn't?

Originally Posted by bobS

The e36 m3 used to hang with many cars more expensive in it's day, Porsche was a rival. Now the 911 craps all over the e9x m3. Remember that poster of the best handling car in America?

That was handling not acceleration performance. Are you not aware of the fact the E92 M3 is faster around Laguna Seca than the 997 Carrera? It thread 997 fans in a tizzy when that was revealed in a comparison. The 991 is a new generation so not fair to compare it. The E92 M3 handles very well.

Originally Posted by bobS

I think this next gen m3 will put it back with the big boys (z06, gtr, 911 turbo,etc).

The M3 was never in the league of those big boys you just mentioned performance wise. Maybe the earlier GTR's but those were not like the current car.

I'm comparing cars of thier time to each other, when you look at fast cars back when the e36 m3 was in production, the e36 m3 was a bargain in price and was as quick, handled the same or better. The gap has widened now days...the e9x m3 needs more power in stock form.

The s50 (us version) had almost as much tq as hp, the s65 doesn't...get it? My fbo 335 has more tq than hp...the new m3 will have almost as much tq as hp, that's my point.

The gap has widened now days...the e9x m3 needs more power in stock form.

Compared to what? The Z06? The GTR? The 911 turbo? It doesn't compete with those cars, it isn't one of those cars.

It beats everything in its class all the time. The C63 AMG doesn't get this kind of talk and I don't get why. They have a $120k C63 Black Series that is a few MPH faster than the M3 in stock form through the 1/4 mile and much heavier. M3 sure looks good when compared to that and especially when compared to the stock C63. The RS4 isn't even mentioned.

Actually for the 96-99 e36 m3, tq increased to 240, so that would be 75 pound feet per liter, same as the s65.....

Yes, and makes your point rather irrelevant doesn't it? But what about the S65 HP per liter in comparison? More yet still the same torque per liter with a higher redline? One motor must have an amazing curve...

*bobS*, your talking about two very different engines and you first need to understand why the s50 made the hp to tq numbers in comparison to why the s65 makes its hp to tq numbers.
A couple rule of thumbs:
1: revs favor hp > e92
2: "cylinder" displacement (not engine displacement) favors tq > equal
3: flow favors hp & tq > e92
Using these rules you can see why these engines make the hp/tq ratios they do. Of course there are more variables with the most important one being they are manuefacturer design/production engines

Dont get cought in the hype that tq wins races. That only applies when your talking about two of the same cars with one having equal hp but more tq (petrol vs deisel is a clare example of this)!

This is one of the reasons than an M3 is faster than other cars producing a higher peak torque. The high redline in the car would be pointless if it had no effect on performance. It would be detrimental in fact - more wear and tear. There is a reason for this - it's to take advantage of gearingb- the engine is still producing torque at high RPM - where most engines run out of breath.